Worries swelling over oil shortage (peak oil)

[cthrumatrix]

Worries swelling over oil shortage
Greg Gordon
Star Tribune Washington Bureau Correspondent
Published March 21, 2005

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In the space of a couple of hours last week, crude oil prices hit a record $56 a barrel, President Bush fretted publicly over world oil shortages and the Senate voted to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to drilling.

snip

When oil production stops rising to meet growing demand, it "will result in dramatically higher oil prices, which will cause protracted economic hardship in the United States and the world," a team of Energy Department consultants warned in a report last month.

"The challenge of oil peaking deserves immediate, serious attention if risks are to be fully understood and mitigation begun on a timely basis."

snip

http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php?template=print_a&story=5303725

when is bush going to come out of his hole and tell americans about peak oil?

[Triana]

1. ...as soon as he gets his nose out of ....

...Terry Schiavo's rear end.

(don't hold your breath waiting - Rove will have another diversion ready by that time...)

[rooboy]

2. Peak Oil and Global Warming are Marxist plots to overthrow freedom...

don'tcha know??

[ClintonTyree]

3. Everybody knows there's no such thing as "peak oil".............

just like "global warming", they're alarmist lies made up by "LIEberals" to keep Americans from living the American dream. There's plenty of oil to sustain the American way of life for centuries.
So don't go worrying about "peak oil", just keep buying those Hummers, those enormous Motor Homes and SEE America!









paid for by the nice folks at Exxon-Mobile

[fushuugi]

17. public service message

did you know that->
the center of the earth is made of the most delicious sweet crude oil you've ever tasted?







paid for by your friends at exxon-mobile

[Toots]

23. Yes and there is no proof that any shortages are/were caused by humans

I mean the world could have had these shortages before and we just weren't around to witness them. :silly:

[Massachusetts]

4. The American Public

will be forced to CONTEMPLATE the REALITY of OUR situation....GOOD!

Not only could this be the beginning of the END for unlimited oil consumption, I hope ITS THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR BOGUS POLITICIANS WHO CARE MORE ABOUT POWER THAN SOLVING PROBLEMS.

Why does it always take some sort of CRISIS to wake up the American public?

[pippin]

5. The American Public Has Been Dumbed Down and . . .

Numbed Down to the point where they are just swallowing whatever Faux News tells them. Bush Co., will also play every diversionary trick they can think of to keep our attentions on what they want us to focus on rather than waht needs to be the center of our collective attention. The too, we've become a nation of ADDs--small attention spans and poor memories for events and issues that bear upon our current situation.

It's time to fight the fundies and not be so easily cowed by this fringe group of lunatics. As far as I am concerned the kid gloves are off!

[november3rd]

7. I wish you were right

But I fear militarization of society, rationing, and a total breakdown of local/sustainable development and political consciousness.

Oh yeah, there will be an economic collapse, too.

[Coastie for Truth]

6. Lee Raymond and Rick Waggoner have said not to worry

just keep buying them Hummers and fill them up with ExxonMobil gas -- Rumsfield and Wolfowitz and Cheney have a "plan" (it's called the Program for the New American Century).

Raymond is the CEO of ExxonMobil

Waggoner is the CEO of GM

[Radio_Rick]

8. I haven't posted about "Peak Oil" --

--while I am a techie (with even a semester of Thermo and a semester or two of "Rotating Machinery") - I am not in the energy or petroleum business. Just a SciAm level reader of "peak oil" and three years in DDE engine rooms as a boot Ensign and LT(jg).

This is what I see and predict--

1. We are not going to hit the "proverbial brick wall" and wake up one morning to find out that the filling stations are dry.

2. Crude prices will go up as crude becomes harder to find, (harder to militarily defend in the places where we find it), harder to drill and recover, harder to refine --- and as more places like China and India bid for it.

3. Bush's "Have Mores" will still have their luxury SUV's like Escalades and Navigators -- even if they are paying astronomical amounts for gasoline.

4. For us working folk - the price of gas will drive us to economy cars and less driving.

5. Natural gas is a fossil fuel - and getting into short supply -- which means electricity will go above the dime a KWHR that we pay, I would not be surprised to see electricity double --- even with much more use of solar and wind.

6. Nuke will come on -- but we really won't see it for 20 years -- well into the down side of Hubbert's peak.

7. Wide spread nuke will hold electricity prices at an uncomfortably high but relatively constant level (driven there by natural gas shortage -- see item 5).

8. The positive effect of nuke will be to enable the "hydrogen economy" by providing a large scale supply of hydrogen from the electrolysis of water. (Electricity from Nuke)

9. The other positive of Nuke is to buy even more time until fusion comes in.

10. Fossil feed stock will not disappear - it will just be sufficiently expensive that it will only find utility in plastics, specialty chemicals, etc. -- but never again as a fuel.

11. Between health care (whether paid for through taxes, through imputed income that is not in our pay checks, or through individual policies) and energy --- the discretionary income (for retirement, kids' college, private schools, entertainment, cars, housing - anything non-energy and non-health care) that is left over will shrink considerably. This is where the economic problems will hit -- and that will be "stag flation" that will kill us.

[Ezlivin]

9. Hydrogen is a red herring

The positive effect of nuke will be to enable the "hydrogen economy" by providing a large scale supply of hydrogen from the electrolysis of water.

Hydrogen will never achieve the same scale of use as gasoline, primarily because it is only an energy carrier and not an energy source. It takes more energy to create hydrogen than the energy it releases, so hydrogen results in a net energy loss. However, it is a great tool to convince Americans to build nuclear power plants.

To permit the rise of "hydrogen economy" we will need to build thousands of fueling stations and find a way to store and transport the world's smallest element. The problem? It can escape very easily. And since it does not have near the energy capacity as gasoline, more storage space must be allotted.

The best solution is an all-electric car. We already have an electrical distribution system and a means to store the electricity. By moving to all-electric cars, we could reduce pollution, noise and oil consumption.

I'm not dead set against nuclear, but it has its share of currently insurmountable problems including waste storage.

[Radio_Rick]

12. Batteries are just another form of hydrogen storage

An NiMH battery (as used in most hybrids) is just a matter of using electricity to move hydrogen between H+ ions and a Metal Hydride alloy. And the charge voltage is 15% to 25% higher then the discharge voltage (at the same current flow or amperage). That is "wasted energy."

And they still have to generate the electricity. We are running out of natural gas (principal fuel for big generators) faster then we are running out of crude oil.

Also, one of the ways of "storing" hydrogen is to "force" it into the same kind (or very similar) alloy to that used in Metal Hydride batteries. (That's what GM's fuel cell prototypes use and what Shell Oil's and TexacoChevron's "Hydrogen Fueling Stations" use). Form the "hydride alloy" at some central place (it's like sandpaper grit - powder), truck it to a local "Hydrogen Fueling Station" -- when you pull in they use a vacuum sweeper to suck out the depleted hydride alloy - into one tank for replenishment -- and pump fresh hydride alloy powder into your tank. It's on the TexacoChevron and GM web sites.

If you really do the College Chemistry 102 homework - between electric cars and hydrogen powered fuel cell cars - it's six of one and half a dozen of another.

Either way - we will have to go nuclear to generate the electricity required by either one or both.

[megatherium]

25. as I mention in post 24, we will import natural gas, which is

still plentiful overseas, I gather. And we still have lots of coal. (But you are probably right, nuclear is going to look more attractive by decade's end.)

But the special charm of batteries is that electric cars are much more efficient than internal combustion engine cars. If you look at the mileage equivalent of battery-powered cars, it's impressive (but I'm afraid I don't remember the numbers off hand). Fuel cells powered by hydrogen would share this charm, but alas fuel cells are still expensive. (GM et al are expecting them to drop in price in about a decade; that would change things a lot.)

My guess is that we will all be driving "plug-in hybrids". Think a Prius but with more batteries, so you can go 20-50 miles on pure battery before the engine kicks in. You plug it in at night to recharge it. So if all you do is commute, you might well never happen to put gas into it. But if you need to drive to Omaha, you can.

[Dissenting_Prole]

30. The infrastructure for importing that much gas...

does not yet exist. The tankers are expensive and no one wants the facilities built in their back yard. Also, the energy required to cool the gas to transport it makes the whole process less economical.

My guess is that most of us will be riding bikes to our farm labour jobs.

[Radio_Rick]

33. Everything is more efficient then IC engines.

For an IC engine the "Carnot Efficiency" (2nd Law of Thermo) kills you. For anything electrical (batteries, fuel cells) the 2nd Law Efficiency is

Charging Voltage --minus-- Discharge Voltage

---divided by---

Charging Voltage

which is about 80%-90%. (Compared to about 40% for an IC engine)

I have been told (I may be old, but I'm not that old) that somebody made "plug in hybrids" on a onesie-twosie basis during WW2 for urban delivery vehicles. My uncle maintains that we saw one (when I was about 6 years old) being recharged from the 110 line through a rectifier the size of a refrigerator. But, I don't remember.

[NickB79]

13. The big problem is how much time do we have?

If it doesn't hit for another 15-20 yrs, and we start investing in alternative energy sources NOW, the transition could go somewhat smoothly. There will be a recession, people will lose jobs, and suburbs will die as people move closer to their jobs, but it would be bearable. If Peak Oil hits in 5-7 yrs, or if we don't throw everything we have at alternative energy sources, there will likely be another Great Depression. Oil prices will jump dramatically within a year or two after Peak Oil, and gasoline prices will follow. You're correct that gasoline won't disappear overnight, but it will be priced out of reach of many working poor within a few months to a few years after Peak. Without a cushion of increased fuel efficiency and alternative energy sources, unemployment will skyrocket and food and heating prices will go through the roof.

Considering that we still have 3 more years of Bush, and that over half of this country was stupid enough to re-elect him, I'm a pessimist and don't think the situation will be as smooth as you suggest.

[Theduckno2]

16. Aren't uranium supplies finite too?

It is my understanding that current reserves of uranium would last a century or so at the current consumption rate. Building more reactors would deplete reserves even faster. I do realize that fast breeder reactors would extend this out to 1000 years, but what to do with all that plutonium? Anybody with current estimates?

[fushuugi]

19. public service message [2]

did you know that->

not only is the center of the earth filled completely with delicious sweet crude oil, but there is also enough uranium down there to last mankind indefinitely.







brought to you by your friends at general atomics and exxon-mobile

[megatherium]

27. proven uranium reserves are said to only be 10-20 years.

But the nuclear industry expects two or three times as much economic uranium ore to be found when there's a bit more economic incentive to go prospecting for it. Also, fuel reprocessing will supply a good bit more.

Breeder reactors in theory could stretch fuel supply into the indefinite future, but breeder reactors have a reputation for being extremely expensive and problematic. Breeder projects have been scrapped because there's no need for the (expensive) plutonium they would produce -- yet.

As far as plutonium proliferation goes, I gather things can be arranged so that nice isotopes of plutonium can be produced (good for reactors but bad for bombs; bombs built with the wrong isotope fizzle, producing 4% of the normal yield).

[Dissenting_Prole]

20. What the &#*@ is a "fusion"?

>9. The other positive of Nuke is to buy even more time until
> fusion comes in.

I've never seen one of these things in operation. Or a scale model of a "fusion". What is it? Where can I get one? It sounds fantastic! I would like to stake my entire future and the future of humankind on this wonderful device.

<sarcasm off>

[Radio_Rick]

21. Fusion

<sarcasm on>
It's not in a creation science book or an intelligent design book - but it's kinda in Genesis.
<sarcasm off>

go to www.sciam.com and search on "fusion"

Two small molecules (as deuterium or tritium) brought together at incredibly high temperatures and presures form a heavy atom (helium) and energy. It's how the sun works -- and how a hydrogen bomb works.

[Dissenting_Prole]

29. My point is...

if it's not operating here and now, it likely isn't going to be a viable solution. Not for a long time.

For example, I saw my first high definition television in 1985. Twenty years later, I still don't know one person who owns one. They're still just barely affordable for the average middle-class home.

It will take years to build the infrastructure for alternatives. We don't have years, and the coming economic collapse will mean we will have fewer resources to implement it.

So I'm not building my lifeboat on the promise of fusion.

[Radio_Rick]

32. We already have the following infrastructure pretty darn close to in place

1. Wind power - drive past the wind turbines every day.
2. Photovoltaic - they are building homes out here with 2KW photovoltaic cells installed for an add on of $10K - $12K plus tax breaks.
3. Nuclear power - 8.1 % of our generation capacity.
4. Biomass - 3.2% of our total energy, about 8-10% of our transportation.
5. Hydro - 2.6%

(all figures are from Lawrence Livermore National Lab's web site.)

Fusion does not generate the electrons that go thru your wall outlets. It heats a heat transfer medium that runs a generator that supplies the coulombs to your wall outlets.

Once you get past the secondary water side of the heat exchanger please tell me how fusion is different from any other heat source.

As an "engineer" and proud of my profession and it's contributions to society I really have to respond to your comment -- stuck in my engineer craw -- "My point is if it's not operating here and now, it likely isn't going to be a viable solution. Not for a long time.

-The Commissioner of Patents in his 1887 Report to Congress said that everything that was ever going to be invented had been invented (1887) and therefore the Patent Office should be closed."

Well, I'm an engineer, in a cutting edge technology, and I have patents of my own -- in even in 2005, I don;t think everything has been invented.

My best friend from high school (now an MD and a PhD in EE) invented, in 1967, an artificial, bionic, prosthetic arm that picked up brain waves from nerve endings in the stump of an arm, "processed" them, and ran a hand with prehensile grasp and feedback to the brain -- 1967. Totally impractical because the computer to do the processing was the size of a house trailer. Today those artificial, bionic, prosthetic arms that he invented in 1967 are being fitted on amputees.

As to your comment "For example, I saw my first high definition television in 1985. Twenty years later, I still don't know one person who owns one." - it's called MPEG -- and it is on your computer and your CD player and your 8 MEG digital camcorder! Just have to plug the screen size into the MPEG CODEC.

[megatherium]

28. the next milestone to fusion power will be ITER.

ITER, when it is built in about a decade, is expected to demonstrate "ignition", when a plasma undergoes a self-sustaining fusion reaction. (Currently, ITER is mired in a political dispute about which country will host it, Japan or France. The US dropped out of the ITER project, but is now back in.) ITER is supposed to have a reaction go for hundreds of seconds at a time, but it will be clear from that that reactions of indefinite duration will be feasible. ITER will produce much more energy than input to start the reaction. It won't produce usuable electricity; that will be the successor project (which if memory serves, will be called DEMO). That will be three to four decades from now.

One important point: the plasma physicists are now getting confident that ITER and its successor will perform as hoped. Economic fusion power will be possible by mid century. (The plasma physicists are getting more confident because they are getting much better at building good computer models for the behavior of plasma, a primary objective of the current existing generation of fusion experiments.)

But another important point: solar PV is improving in efficiency and price by 4% a year. It may well be very competitive on its own merits by the time fusion is available. Either way, our future involves fusion energy: that is how the Sun gets its power.

[megatherium]

24. good analysis except

you neglect the fact that we still have plenty of coal, which will continue to provide the majority of our electricity (currently 50%). Also while natural gas is in short supply here, there is still plenty overseas; this will begin to be imported in substantial amounts. (There is public resistance to the notion of huge liquified natural gas tankers in our ports, but perhaps this will end when electricity prices surge.) But your overall point -- that we will have tough economic times but no screaming catastrophe -- I think is correct.

[MeasureTwice]

26. How old are you?

In the 1970's the gas stations did run out of gas. It does happen.
They started limiting how much you could pump at a time, and they started selling gas by the quart because the pumps didn't go over .99/gallon
There were lines to get gas at the stations that had some.

Hey that would be a nice problem for the SUV owners if they started being limited in how much gas they could buy at a time (Please let me have an extra gallon or I won't make it to the next station)

[manxkat]

10. Oil's not well

according to Chris Shaw, guest writer at Asia Times

http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GC15Dj01.html

"Have no doubt that the race for the last of the easy energy has begun. First out of the stalls was the US military-industrial complex, which in year 2000 installed the loser in a presidential election. Thus began operation "war on terror", launched under a smokescreen - a fusillade of explosions provided by men of Middle-Eastern appearance. While it is up to the Islamists to provide some semblance of a threat, it is up to us Westerners to imagine the terror. The coalition of the willing leaders have offered their services as cheerleaders of the terrified and I understand that the American incumbent has some prior experience in this regard."

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. In the meantime, Bush is AWOL again

Where's the leadership? Where's the ideas that don't need legislation? The simple stuff that everyone can do now and we don't need to have a crisis? That's what the office of the Presidency is supposed to be about. Imagine Kennedy ignoring this problem?

In the meantime, Bush has got his head up McCain's butt today, trying to rip off the one last pot of money, Social Security, that he can get his hands on before he goes into exile.

[barb162]

14. is that a trick question

[chlamor]

15. Kick-People Aren't Prepared for This-Forget Government

There is zero possibility of gov't responding to this in a timely and effectual manner. You are the answer. We are in energy crisis mode NOW. If US wasn't stealing copious amounts of other nations carbon the house of cards would collapse immediately instead of the slow grind we are in.

Fantastic article published today by Michael Klare: "Oil Crunch Planet":
www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2277

Seed to Seed by Suzanne Answorth- The Seed Savers Bible

[mhr]

18. Energy Flows In The US Economy - For Perspective

[DFWJock]

22. The solution is simple....

just pick up the phone and "jawbone OPEC."
There, that's easy.

[JohnyCanuck]

31. Peak Oil related streaming video links:

Professor Al Bartlett's lecture on exponential growth, resource depletion and peak oil:

(MP4 - Apple Quick Time or Real Player)
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/Al_Bartlett-PeakOil.mp4

Excerpts from the documentary End of Suburbia (24min). High speed connection required.

Apple Quick Time (.mov)
http://911busters.com/video/IQ1_20_END_OF_SUBURBIA_VIDEO_24.2_.mov

Windows Media Player (.wmv)
http://911busters.com/video/IQ1_20_END_OF_SUBURBIA_VIDEO_24.2_.wmv

End of Suburbia is also available for rent at Netflix
http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?trkid=73&movieid=70022083


Physicist Dr. David Goodsein, Author of "Out of Gas: The End Of The Age Of Oil" talks about global warming and peak oil at Caltech.

Streaming Real Media

56K - http://today.caltech.edu/theater/5602_56k.ram

Medium Broadband - http://today.caltech.edu/theater/5602_bb.ram

Full Cable/DSL - http://today.caltech.edu/theater/5602_cable.ram

[trekbiker]

34. there is a silver lining to this..

cheap, high energy density "light sweet crude" is being squandered in our SUV's. But fossil fuels like coal, natural gas, tar sands will be around for a very long time. They will be expensive. I think this will force some incredible new technologies and lifestyles upon us in our lifetimes. Small, lightwieght vehicles that can go 100+ miles on a gallon of ethanol, alcohol, oil, whatever. Houses and appliances that use barely any energy compared to today's technology. Battery technology that will allow a practical electric car and enough storage for wind and solar generation. Solar cells on every home and business. massive wind farms in Crawford Texas.... (the dumb fuck might as well have something on his "ranch" since he cant ride a horse and is all hat no cattle...)

I've seen the enthusiasm and excitement on the Prius forums when people start to really think about their energy useage and what they can do to maximise it. I'm looking forward to the era of post Peak Oil. it will be very exciting. and profitable for those of us who see it coming and can act on it. Our way of life will be forced to change for the better and the post Peak Oil period will be a much better fit for the Progressive mindset than the regressive Freeper Neocon worldview (how many Freepers do you suppose own a Prius??).